December 27, 2010

DADT and Rape Culture

by Doctor Science

In the discussion to Sebastian's post celebrating the end of DADT, commenter avedis took issue. I found avedis' comments more honest and comprehensible than most defenses of DADT, but they raise disturbing questions about rape culture in the military.

WARNING: POTENTIALLY TRIGGERY DISCUSSION OF RAPE AND RAPE CULTURE

avedis said:

To be blunt, I have no doubt whatsoever that there are homosexuals who have the phsyical and psychological right stuff to go out slaughter human beings with the best of 'em. However, the typical 18 to 24 year old who is out there doing that kind of work sees sexually conquering females as an important aspect of the personna and sucking dick and taking it up the ass as being antithetical to it.

I think avedis is both honest and clear about why he thinks DADT should remain in place -- much more so than any public figures who have spoken about the issue (Senator McCain, Marine Corps General Amos, etc.).

As I understand him, avedis is saying that:

a) a "macho" construction of masculinity is a crucial shared value that keeps combat military units together

b) one factor that holds such units together is that there are no sexual relations inside the group. All inside the group are effectively peers, a Band of Brothers, even though some are leaders or commanders (=older brothers). Sex is something you do with outsiders, and therefore *cannot* be with peers, because your peers are your unit.

c) a macho, masculine man is always dominant in a sexual relationship; his partner (male or female) is degraded or made less by penetration. In other words, having sex with you (the man who is the POV in this story) is bad for people. Sex is not how you show or get caring or trust: you get that from the Band of Brothers.

What avedis is IMHO describing is a form of rape culture, as several other commenters noted. But he is also describing a *very* traditional and (presumably) militarily effective culture. Crudely, military men are put into units where trust and emotional care are completely separated from sex, and all sex becomes whoring or rape. If you permit open homosexuals in such a unit, their very feelings threaten the division between Us (those we trust and don't f*ck) and Them (those we don't trust and may dominate or f*ck).

*That*'s why getting rid of DADT threatens "unit cohesion" -- because it threatens the strict compartmentalization between sex and the rest of life. As avedis says, prime combat troops are young, healthy, and have a naturally high libido. Why should straight men agree to live in a single-sex environment, given their natural desire to meet women? One way is to tell them that they don't need to get to *know* women to have sex with them: prostitution is enough, rape is enough.

Remember, the over-arching purpose of "unit cohesion" is *not* to get the unit members to depend on each other emotionally. The purpose is to make them work together to do whatever their commanders tell them. When units get too close, they're just as dangerous as when they "lose cohesion": unnecessary casualties are bad, but disobeying orders is military disaster. I suspect that keeping combat troops sexually frustrated is one of the ways traditional military machismo helps keep them obedient. Certainly in ancient warfare (e.g. the Iliad) one of the rewards of military success even for foot soldiers was the right to rape women in a conquered city.

Basically, I think avedis is right that gay-acceptance undercuts the macho, gender-conformist rape culture that's part of traditional military culture. We all know, I trust, that the US military has had a lot of trouble integrating women into the forces, especially with regard to rape and sexual harassment. The female vets I know say that whether they were accepted or not depended almost entirely on their Commanding Officer: when the CO was firm but fair, the military is far more respectful and empowering than civilian culture often is. When the CO thinks women don't really belong, though, it's an unparalleled nightmare. That says to me that the services *as a whole* haven't accepted women -- too much depends on the individual COs, too little on the overall military culture.

The same thing will happen with gay men, and I expect their experiences to be correlated with those of women. That is, the Marines have the lowest proportion of women of any of the services, and they also have objected most to lifting DADT. To me this says that the Marines are most gender-conformist and may well have even more of a traditional rape culture than the other services, awful though that is to imagine for someone raised knowing there's "the right way, the wrong way, and the Marine Corps way". In any event, I don't think that the services will be able to change their attitudes unless they acknowledge what their attitudes are, what they've been in the past, and what they need for the future.

Comments

This thread also bears witness to the sheer amount of raping and fu8king going on in the military from top to bottom, from Air Force Academy to battlefield, from ship to shore. There seems to be more fu8king and raping going on than Dagny Taggert could ever dream of.

It concerns me that the military might be neglecting, or at least shortchanging the other major part of its mission: pillaging.

But that's another thread for another day, or in this case another year.

Finally, having spent a little time at Subic Naval Base in the Philippines years ago when the American fleet would enter port to lay siege or lay pipe or whatever it is they did, I noticed the thousands of female prostitutes lining the streets and festooning the balconies welcoming our boys.

But there was always a contingent of male prostitutes purveying their wares as well, and who could miss the male transvestite prostitutes gussied up for the "influx".

But I don't know for whom the bell tolled in those cases.

Aren't the Marines part of the Navy? Ahoy! Maybe they required a rougher trade during R and R, not that there is anything wrong with that, in my book, if you've read the naughty bits, which you haven't because my book is boring.

To paraphrase a certain midwestern Senator who was against lifting DADT, one would like to know if the Marines were fully equipped in their search for a few good men.

Let's hope that like General Ripper, our boys did not let anyone partake of their essence.

Taking some time to re-read this thread before the guests arrive (miracles do happen! though I'll probably bug out at 10 or something), I want to address one of avedis' early comments:

I think that the author of the linked article is a little radical and a little bitter - just look at her - because she is not asble to play that game. She wants to be appreciate for her intellect, alone, or something. Good luck with that.

Dude, what planet do you come from to think, of a woman making a powerful statement against rape, *anything other* than "she and/or someone she's close to is a rape survivor." How can that *not* be the most likely source of her bitterness? And why shouldn't she be bitter, if it is?

I frankly can't remember offhand if she's a rape survivor herself, but IIRC at least one person who blogs there is. The important point is that your statement is *much* too close to being flip or dismissive about rape, and I won't be having with that. Also, it's a really bizarro-world vision of likely human motivations.

@avedis:Of course a gay being discharged is going to claim discrimination and that is one of my points against the repeal. Now they can raise the spector of discrimination whenever they are disciplined up to and including discharge.

You have persistently refused to detail how the existence of another class of individuals granted EO protections would be revolutionary and create problems that do not currently exist, are not currently dealt with, and for some magical reason could not be dealt with. If a non-white or non-mainstream-Christian or non-male dirtbag is e.g., chaptered out for being a dirtbag, they can file EO complaints now. How will the ability of a homosexual dirtbag being able to file EO complaints to challenge justified disciplinary measures suddenly Change Everything?

@EKR:Really? So, the UCMJ permits this sort of behavior? Can you point to the relevant section?

Avedis has shown a persistent contempt for the UCMJ, despite obedience to it being in the very oath all service members are required to uphold. Values like discipline, loyalty, duty, honor, and integrity are apparently subordinate to morale and unit cohesion (and anything and everything troops individually and arbitrarily might deem necessary to maintain them) in his eyes.

Kinda cute how avedis keeps referring to the person in this alleged beating scenario as "the gay" rather than "the woman." But we're supposed to be the ones who all have problems.

Also kinda cute how his daughter got from "one person made an unwanted pass at me" to "the whole repeal is 'f*cking retarded.'" With inductive reasoning skills like that, she must be the apple of her daddy's eye.

Christian crackpots....I don't read anything qualifying that statement like "the SUBSET of christians that are crackpots".

The funniest part is that you didn't read the word "Christian" at all, since the original sentence was, "the religious crackpots that have infiltrated the US military to an alarming degree with the Air Force academy just being the tip of the (unfortunately non-melting) iceberg.'

The funny thing is, you proved Hartmut's point: He said that if these crackpots were to be drummed out of the service, they'd claim "anti-Christian" bigotry, and you jumped right on claiming exactly that. Another own-goal, making that at least your third in this thread alone. Perhaps a new Obsidian Wings record? Judges

And what would define that subset? Probably any christian that doesn't agree with your special little world view

***sigh*** Another failure of your inference skills. I could embarrass you again by explaining exactly why, but what's the point? If you've proven nothing else at this point, you've proven that you're incapable of learning.

And Gary, don't think for a moment that I haven't applied my skills and training to you personally. "Three months of college, but look at what a great writer and analyst I am!" You have a big chip on your shoulder and it is a weakness that makes you vulnerable. It's obvious. Give your ego a break.

First, your "skills and training" have led you to draw nothing but incorrect conclusion after incorrect conclusion about me, Sebastian, LJ, Doctor Science and others on this thread, so I wouldn't be puffing out my chest and parading them about, were I you. Just a free pro tip for the New Year.

Second, I think it's pretty clear who's suffering the ego damage here: It's the guy who's continually making a fool of himself on Obsidian Wings by getting everything he says wrong, while being an arrogant prick in the process, and is furthermore getting his butt owned by an experienced, intelligent autodidact.

I will part ways by sharing a few maybe relevant quotes from a man I come to respect through one of his legacies; his written perspectives. I thank those here who recommended that I become familiar with him. He is a man I would have liked to have known in person. The cost of war is truly too high.

"....global warming has now become more than just a scientific question for many people: it's a religious belief right up there with the most dedicated theists I know, and just as annoying."

"Expecting women to serve as effectively as men in combat, or as firefighters, or in any profession that demands a certain level of physical strength, is illogical. Wishing will not make it so, and allowing women into such professions simply because we don't want to hurt their feelings is dangerous."

"There are important questions out there that need to be answered, and we can't get to a good answer if we waste all our time being offended by the others' arguments. "

"At a time one might expect the gender feminists to be pleased that the plight of women in Afghanistan is finally being addressed, instead they are fixated on making sure nobody but them can 'own' the issue of gender equity, so that they can define it for their own purposes to further their anti-men agenda here in the US. It's a sad story, but a common one among gender feminists these days. Much like the media, the most vocal feminists of today no longer speak for the majority of those they claim to represent, instead representing a strange far-left coalition of interests."

"....Morale is a critical factor in combat, and the sweeping success of the Northern Alliance coupled with the presence of such an impressive combat force as a Marine Expeditionary Force should allow us to break the Taliban's morale once and for all..."

All quotes are from Andrew Olmsted.

I was unable to locate a single commentary or reference in his writings to DADT or Homosexual military service.

avedis,
You obviously didn't read when Andy wrote this
"I do ask (not that I'm in a position to enforce this) that no one try to use my death to further their political purposes." link

By invoking Andy's words and claiming that the absence of commentary on DADT tells us what he believed is a load of crap.
Furthermore, Andy was serving, so it is hard for me to imagine him decrying a policy that was accepted as standard. In fact, when I believe he stopped blogging for a time when an order came down that he interpreted as ruling out blogging for those in the field, even though I am sure that he felt the order was stupid. Which serves to undercut your main point in all this, which is that people serving will refuse to obey orders and let their personal homophobia dictate their actions.

I didn't know what a homosexual was until I was in college. No one taught me anything, good or bad, about gay people.

McKinneyTexas wrote this. Does anyone here believe this?

This guy managed to get out of grade school, let alone high school, and NEVER heard the words "faggot" "fag" "queer" "pansy" "pantywaist" "sissy" or anything similar and didn't understand exactly what they meant and that they were bad things to be called? As in, physically dangerous to be called? As in, if your peers believe you to be one, they'll beat the crap out of you?

I'm calling BS on that; unless he was home-schooled by radical feminists who never let him out of the house, there's no way what he wrote is true.

"There are important questions out there that need to be answered, and we can't get to a good answer if we waste all our time being offended by the others' arguments."

Ah, the "you can't handle the truth" gambit.

Well, I'm convinced. The next time someone implies that my relationship with my partner of 15 years is indistinguishable from a relationship with a dead body, or a cow, I'll have to give it some serious thought. Spending all my time being offended certainly won't help us solve any important problems.

While it was nice seeing a united front of commenters taking on avedis' all-too-familiar mix of dick-waving bravado and abject sexual terror, I do find myself wondering just what constitutes "beyond the pale" when it comes to homophobic remarks around here. I'm not referring to ban-worthy offenses, as the posting rules are clear enough. But I have to say that when the inevitable necrophilia/bestiality comparisons were dragged out and numerous commenters just kept on presuming good faith on avedis' part...well, it makes me wonder.

This whole discussion was effectively over almost immediately after it started, when Gary produced the list of countries that already allow lesbians and gays to serve openly without problems. Avedis never produced a response to this beyond "we're different" or, more specifically, "we're real men and they're a bunch of p*ssies." And yet the "debate" dragged on, and on, and on, over several hundred comments, as if avedis was going to produce an argument worth engaging sooner or later.

Would a Steve Sailer fan enjoy the same kind of indulgence here? He's not afraid of asking the tough questions that make PC liberals uncomfortable, you know...

Uncle Kvetch,
Actually, SS has popped up around these parts, a few years ago, and he didn't get banned.

But avedis started out with the graphic acts and then 'toned down', which kinda pulls people in. I continue to have my doubts, and I'm thinking that several people also do as well, given that they don't feel like taking up his comments, though it may be just a slow time because of the holidays. A lot of it would depend on whether avedis is actually a Marine vet who feels compelled to air his feelings here (in which case, it would be wrong to ban him and it is right to present him with alternatives) or someone playing a game. Anyone who has the time and willingness to research thru all of Andy's old posts, in order to try to set up a gotcha, rather than deal with the current statements of 3 of the 4 Joint Chiefs, makes me suspect the latter, but who knows, and who cares? Not me, really.

Of course I'm not a regular commenter here, so read this accordingly, but the major difference I see is the relative ages of the two civil rights movements.

"Racism is bad" is simply an older message than "homophobia is bad." What that means, among other things, is that there are still persuasible people out there about the latter.

I tend to reckon that anyone in this day and age who firmly believes that blacks are inferior to whites is beyond my ability to persuade. But I still have hope that people raised with concepts of manliness and femininity that implicitly (or explicitly) exclude homosexuality as an acceptable option can rethink things in the light of new information and new perspectives.

I doubt that avedis was listening for that new information, those new perspectives. But more people read a site like this than comment here, and some of them may be hearing these discussions for the first (or first hundredth) time. Re-proving the case, laying out the arguments one more time, may still be of use in changing minds.

I'm sorry that this has left you with the impression that your membership in acceptable society is tenuous. It isn't, at least not in my book, and the united front you mention should go some way to proving that it isn't here on Obsidian Wings.

Like I said, I'm not a regular commenter; mostly I just read here. But that's how I see it.

I doubt that avedis was listening for that new information, those new perspectives. But more people read a site like this than comment here, and some of them may be hearing these discussions for the first (or first hundredth) time. Re-proving the case, laying out the arguments one more time, may still be of use in changing minds.

That's a compelling argument and well worth pondering.

Actually, SS has popped up around these parts, a few years ago, and he didn't get banned.

Just to be clear, I wasn't calling for anyone to be banned (and this not being my blog, I'd be on very shaky ground were I to do so). I was just surprised at the number of people who were willing to engage avedis in debate, given what I thought was a blatantly obvious combination of ignorance, raw bigotry, bad faith, and proof by assertion right from the start. Frankly I felt more encouraged by the commenters who simply called avedis out as a troll than by those who devoted far more time and effort to his "arguments" than they deserved.

I'm sorry that this has left you with the impression that your membership in acceptable society is tenuous. It isn't, at least not in my book, and the united front you mention should go some way to proving that it isn't here on Obsidian Wings.

This guy managed to get out of grade school, let alone high school, and NEVER heard the words "faggot" "fag" "queer" "pansy" "pantywaist" "sissy" or anything similar and didn't understand exactly what they meant and that they were bad things to be called?

In fact, it's an interesting thought experiment to imagine avedis, his whale-watching daughter (one wonders if the whales felt vaguely discomfited by all of the staring through the binoculars) and his son showering together with Sailer and a few of the lesbian softball players the latter spends WAY too much time obsessing over.

Just to see who would get first dibs on the lufa. The outcome could be expressed in terms of Sailer's favorite diagram -- a bell curve.

Personally, wouldn't the world be a better place if, instead of this weird "dick-waving bravado and abject sexual terror" expressed by the macho heterosexual (which, I guess, has to be inference, doesn't it?) patriots in the population, whether while showering or in hand-to-hand combat, or when dropping "Little Boy" from the armored loins of the "Enola Gay" (think what the macho heterosexual patriots in the Japanese military though about THAT!), ....... we could reverse the equation and imagine one lonely straight individual showering with a platoon of gay or lesbian patriots and furtively fantasizing, all shifty-eyed, about beating the sh*t of the them, and then the majority could gang up on the single imaginer of violence and soap his or her back ... and then venture into battle as a cohesive unit and kick some enemy butt?

By the way, for what it's worth, I'm against banning racists and homophobes from virtual places like Obsidian Wings.

Not that I would want to sing "Kumbaya" with them either. I don't sing "Kumbaya" with racist, war-mongering homophobics bullies. Rather, as a heterosexual and fairly macho male softball player and Jimmy Breslin liberal, I'd prefer to make fun of them or, failing that, invite them into the street for a f8cking fistfight.

They can bring their guns .... sorry ... rifles, too.

After all, banning racists and homophobes and other enemies of humanity from Obsidian Wings seems like such a drop in the bucket when we live in a country that, like clockwork elects them en masse to run the government.

But I'd also point to, save that I prefer not to by name, quite a few commenters on ObWi who started out in not terribly dissimilar fashion as avedis, or met with similarly, ah, mixed reaction, who over a couple or three years, or less, or more, became very popular, or at least reasonably popular commenters.

Some people evolve with time, others less, others more, others not. Only time and patience tells. I would never instruct anyone else (in this sort of situation) to be patient, nor even suggest they should be patient for a moment, with... many things. Including endless sorts of legitimately taken offense, as has been much given in this thread, and others, and is often the case at ObWi, and on blogs, and in life.

But I'm as patient as I can manage until I'm not. I can only speak for myself, and that's the only person I speak for unless elected or authorized to speak otherwise by others.

For the rest, see this post, and I'll respond further there, but not in this thread. Sorry about that, but I have reasons.

And so far as avedis and anyone else is concerned, he and everyone can call *me* a queer faggot all he or they like, and I'm very very gay and love to [WHATEVER HE THINKS A DISGUSTING SEX ACT IS].

I would prefer he put all his projected views on me, rather than anyone else. But all I can do is tell him that, oh, I'm so so so very proud to be gay, because I'm a sissy pansy.

I could actually be specific about the degree of truth here, which certainly includes OMG, well, no, I won't be specific, because I don't think it's relevant or would be helpful, but if I decide to get really specific, without violating the posting rules, I'll do so if possibly appropriate and helpful.

In my own thread.

Meanwhile, I love love love to s*** c***, and t*** it in the ***. Yum, yum, yum.

All that matters is perception. And I damn well have been called those names many times, and have no problem identifying myself as queer. Queer queer queer queer. A pervert.

What I know for a fact is that I've done stuff that avedis would appear to regard that way; I doubt he'd like to know, or would care to know, details.

"This guy managed to get out of grade school, let alone high school, and NEVER heard the words "faggot" "fag" "queer" "pansy" "pantywaist" "sissy" or anything similar and didn't understand exactly what they meant and that they were bad things to be called? As in, physically dangerous to be called? As in, if your peers believe you to be one, they'll beat the crap out of you?"

Nah, I'd believe it. I not only heard those words, but got the crap beaten out of me by my peers, but had no clue that they had anything to do with sexual practices, until I was at college. It's not like nerds get invited to participate in PE locker room conversations, after all. Being a social pariah can leave you pretty clueless about that sort of thing.

[...] I think that the author of the linked article is a little radical and a little bitter - just look at her - because she is not asble to play that game. She wants to be appreciate for her intellect, alone, or something.

I've only just seen this comment.

As an official Obsidian Wings co-blogger, I'm declaring this to be, speaking as only one member of the collective, in my opinion, two sentences (at least) that are in violation of The Posting Rules.

Specifically:

Be reasonably civil.

And, most specifically:

Do not consistently abuse or vilify other posters for its own sake.

Avedis, you've gotten away with a lot here, due to a combination of tremendous tolerance, lack of co-ordination, and other factors.

So far as we have an official policy at this time, it's either up to Eric Martin to declare, or you to be surprised with, and you may appeal any decision by email to ObWings At gmail Dot com

If you have trouble figuring out how that works, speak up.

But it's how I suggest to the current collective that banning be handled in future.

That, or something similarly consistent and clear; I don't care about the precise numbers; I care about consistent rules that everyone can understand, that are enforced as consistently as is practical.

Don't make declarations about other people that you are not entitled to make. This is an example of your doing so, just one of many.

Gary, I have to admit that what respect I had for avedis went out the window with those comments, however if Melissa McEwan from shakespearessister.blogspot.com, who I think avedis was refering to, is posting here then its not under her own name (or possibly I'm blind). So the rule: "Do not consistently abuse or vilify other posters for its own sake." doesn't apply since she is not a poster here or at least not one avedis could recognise. So maybe better rules are needed.

OTOH, it would be nice if avedis could be led to understand how offensive those comments were, which sadly I doubt he does.

Nah, I'd believe it. I not only heard those words, but got the crap beaten out of me by my peers, but had no clue that they had anything to do with sexual practices, until I was at college

This is not exactly a ringing endorsement of McKinneyTexas's claim. I was King Nerd of Nerd Hill in high school, and I certainly knew what "gay" meant. I could hardly help it; before I changed my last name, it was "Kaye," so I was called "Phil Gay" nearly every day for four years.

The two of you are not particularly older than me, so if you genuinely didn't know what "gay" meant, it was not for lack of exposure in the popular culture.

BTW, "gay" doesn't actually refer to "sexual practices." Another pro tip for the new year.

"OTOH, it would be nice if avedis could be led to understand how offensive those comments were, which sadly I doubt he does."

I do understand that someone from coming from your pespective would find those comments offensive. Do you understand that those comments are typical of how men talk and think - not just military men - but men in all walks of life? Most men would say that you are being way overly sensitive and way too serious about your pet issues. Some would call you all those names that Gary tossed out in a recent comment above for being offended.

In the hundreds of exchanges that took place over the past week I never once did any name calling. I never referred to anyone here in a derogatory manner with regards to sexual orientation. So where does that come from, Gary (and others)? Overly sensitive and self-conscious? Histrionics (sorry to stereotype). I don't know. I'm just guessing. You tell me.

I truthfully disclosed that I have friends that are gay and that I enjoy a drink with them from time to time. Yet, I am repeatedly called a "homophobe". I do not appreciate being called names that don't fit. Would that not fall under the posting rules? Or are the rules only for those that don't agree with you?

Yes, of the thousands of words I wrote here, we could focus on the necrophilia comment. That was over the top on my part. Yet, I never did say that homosexuals are perverts or that they are like necrophiliacs. What I asked, no doubt poorly, was why does one particual sexual orientation minority get so much attention when others don't if the issue is fairness in society and all of that. It was stupid of me and it was rude. That being said, no one has any problem with folks here making fun of my children who are out in harm's way. Gary asked me to share a little of where I'm coming from. My children's situation is a major aspect of my life (and the whale was observed givening birth through other means than binos - a satellite?)

One of the fundemenatal points I was attempting to make throughout is that people here have no understanding of military life; especially in combat arms. After the hundreds of comments I remain convinced that I am correct re; that lack of understanding. More concerning to me is that not only is there a lack of understanding, there is what appears to be a wishing away of the mindset (i.e. either they will learn to change or big gov't will force them to change or they can just leave the service).

I was not presenting an accusatory dichomoty in y descriptions of life in combat arms; "we Marines are tough and manly and you [insert from Gary's list] are p*ssies." I gather that some here think I was. More of that overly self conscious and somewhat self-depreciative thought process.

Also, I truthfully provided as much of my background in the area of my service as a US Marine as I am comfortable doing on the internet with a bunch of strangers (hostile ones at that) or to some extent, am able to due to classified nature of intelligence work. Yes, I could give some further ellaboration, but that would probably only lead to more probing questions that I would not answer. The details are not germane to our discussion anyhow.

I'm sure none of us want to start rehashing what has already been argued. That is not my intent for this communication.

I guess what I was -and am - trying to say is that even at my most hard charging (some 20 years ago when I was in the service), I was more open minded and liberal in my thinking than the majority my peers. I've mellowed quite a bit since then. I assure you that there are many in the service at all levels that me look like Mary Poppins. Look at this in the news today.

And it was in today's charged political climate. Unbelievable? But there you have it. BTW, I find it disgusting and a disgrace.

Yet you guys call me a bigot and a homophobe and are hardly open to even considering the notion that I - or my perspective - may actually represent a significant proportion of the population that will be faced with either successfully implementing the repeal of DADT or subverting it one way or another. If you can't deal with me, your side will never be able to deal with the hardcore element that is in charge.

I was told to read Andy Olmsted by more than one commentator. I always act in good faith. If someone I am debating recommends a source I take action and follow through. It was a pleasure to read his perspectives. I found a man I agree with on most issues. When I didn't agree in part or in total I could at least respect that he had a right to his opinion and that he had given fair consideration to alternative viewpoints. Again, I found it strange that Andy was recommended to me because, as a military man, I found his attitude to be more in line with mine than those recommending him to me. I was not playing gotcha games. I selected what I thought were relevant quotes to help demonstrate another military mindset on the nuances of "the gender wars", Marines, etc, all of which were being debated with me.

At the end of the day, I find this blog to be exactly what I said it was in my first comment; an echo chamber. The again, I already knew that. I have been reading Eric Martin for many years and have followed him from place to place. I used to comment on his posts. I don't any more because I see no reason to engage with a bunch of people that are from another world than the one I inhabit. That is not an insult. I make to value call or judgement as to whose world is "better". Things are what they are. As I was layed up with an injury that didn't resolve I had some time on my hands and decided to take the plunge and probe the thought processes that I find so allien. A recon by fire if you will. I regret the experience. To what I am sure is your relief, I won't be doing it again any time soon.

There's no telepathy. No homogeneity. No cabal coordinating thoughts and words.

Each of us is an individual.

There's no one who has ever commented here who has ever agreed with everything anyone else has ever said here. There is endless disagreement.

That's mostly what we do.

Saying "I agree" and "what X said" doesn't take very long, and isn't all that interesting.

There have been thousands of commenters here over the years. Hundreds and hundreds of people who have been regulars for either months, or years, or on and off, and every variation.

Each with their own unique views.

Think this has been a liberal only place?

You've already read a tiny bit of Andrew.

Read more of Sebastian H.'s posts.

Read Charles Bird's posts.

Read von's posts.

Read Slartibartfast's posts.

Read Moe Lane's posts.

Commenters? Read... would be unfair to start naming them, but we have conservatives, we have libertarians, we have people with incomprehensible views, we have liberals, leftists, rightiests, communists, socialists, occasional Tea Partiers, we have people from a wide variety of countries, and a variety of people who speak/read/write English only as a second language.

You're one as much as anyone and everyone else.

This blog has had representation on the front page of a wide variety of vastly different range of opinion.

Your opinion remains as welcome as any, within the posting rules.

That said, I may have over-reacted with my Official Warning to you, and since that may be so, I'm going to not count it against you. Next time, should there be a next time, will be your First Warning.

c) You think we six don't disagree with each other? You think I haven't disagreed with each and every single front pager who has ever posted here, including Hilzoy and Katherine, and annoyed the hell out each, numerous times?

d) You think others of us haven't annoyed each other over content or style?

That's funny.

This is, within the posting rules, a place anyone is free to comment as they wish what they wish, so long as they're vaguely on topic, and we're pretty damn vague about that. Open threads are just that.

As commenters, we're all the same. You are as much "we" or "you guys" as anyone else: no more, no less. Notice.

Just a follow-up note on McKinney Texas and not hearing about homosexuality in school. I may be, at 66, even older than he is, and I can entirely believe him. (Someone referred to "the 60s," but I graduated from HS in 1960, so I'm talking about the 50s, which were a different world altogether. Even in California)

There were of course (I know now) gays around - though not the term "gay" in that sense - but there was an enormous conspiracy of silence in the media and in public institutions such as school and church. Which meant that if one was generally clueless and marginalized, as I was, one might indeed not hear anything at all about it. Not hearing the term "faggot" or "c**ks**ker" or anything of that ilk was a distinct possibility. It happened to me.

When in college I started hearing about homosexuality (although I still didn't meet anyone whom I knew to be gay), I wasn't so much shocked as enlightened. It was like learning about the Renaissance, or igneous rocks - new information about the world to be processed. And this information included the social data that to be gay (though we still didn't know that word) was to be subject to ridicule, and thus to be avoided or denied, but it wasn't anything like as *open* a discourse as the USA has seen over the last 40+ years.

WRT banning, I don't think "avedis" should be (or should have been) banned. I think that, after the first couple of dozens of rounds, he should have been ignored. Shunned, even. DNFTT.

He claims he is not a homophobe. Maybe, maybe not; no way for me to know.

But he does assert, again and again and again, that real warriors ARE homophobes, and that they will not (cannot?) change, and will even subvert or abandon the military if asked to, and we as a nation cannot afford that. And he maintains this in the face of massive evidence that warriors in other times and other nations have not all been homophobes. As well as evidence that over the past 60 years or so racists in the US military have been forced to abandon the overt expression of their prejudices, and the sky did not fall in. Their patriotism or their devotion to duty ultimately outweighed their racism, and we as a nation are better for it. But "avedis" denies this precedent.

If he is not a homophobe he is a full-time, partisan enabler of homophobia. Not worth my time, or anyone else's. I feel foolish having engaged him as much as I did. So should we all.

I'd bet it's because he believes the term homophobia equals hatred, and he doesn't feel that he hates. Having read all the posts in this thread, I believe that he does hate, but he does so not with anger and violence, but with denigration and dismissiveness.

I remember this one from Hogan's link very well (though I'm surpised there's any record of it after all these years):

See for instance this example, used in a commercial:

Boy: Grandpa, yesterday Jimmy said I was prejudiced.
Grandpa: Do you know what prejudice is?
Boy: No.
Grandpa: Well, prejudice is when you react to someone because of their religion, or their color.
Boy: But I don't do that!
Grandpa: Who is Jimmy?
Boy: Jimmy's one of my Jewish friends.
Grandpa: Then you are prejudiced, because you think of Jimmy as your Jewish friend, and not your friend.

Jimmy and Grandpa were fishing.

I was in 2nd or 3rd grade when I saw that commercial, though the point of it was somewhat lost on me. It led me to call people "prejudiced" whenever I disagreed with them, with little regard to the nature of the disagreement. Fortunately, Mrs. Wetzel put a stop to that after hearing me make the charge on the playground one day.

had no clue that they had anything to do with sexual practices, until I was at college

Oh, boy. This looks to be a wilful application of blinders, or self-deception. They're almost the same thing, but not quite.

Look, as a lad who grew up in roughly the same part of the country as you did, Brett, I never actually saw homosexuality, because That Was Not Allowed. I never even really thought about it, except in the abstract. Nevertheless, if pressed I could come up with some things that made homosexuals homosexual that didn't involve swishiness or tidiness.

Not meaning to stereotype, but I grew up immersed in it, and that is what I'm attempting to resurrect, here.

So: I think others here have a decent point, WRT the whole I didn't even know what gay meant until I was in college business.

avedis' echo-chamber comments are laughable, and not worthy of refuting. That we all have some degree of respect and regard for each other doesn't mean we agree with each other. We don't.

You're free to not believe it if you wish, but I think you're underestimating just how insulated from things sexual a nerd growing up as a social pariah can be. I derived the equations for transfer orbits from basic principles when I was in Jr. High for fun, but my first kiss that didn't come from an aunt was after I got to college.

Diversity isn't just about skin color, you know, it's about life experiences, too.

Brett's story is consistent, in terms of lack of exposure, with his earlier one about asking his black college roommate how he got such a great tan. (I do remember that correctly, don't I, Brett?)

It is hard to believe that someone wouldn't have come to know certain things into young adulthood, but I just don't see Brett putting that great an effort into creating the illusion of cluelessness. I believe him, FWIW. Mileage varies.

I believe both Brett and Slarti at January 03, 2011 at 01:43 PM and at January 03, 2011 at 02:06 PM

I have reason to do so.

And they're among the people whose views I've watched evolve over the years on ObWi, in their own ways, to their own degrees, as many of us have, not least of all me, but doubtless as all of us have in one significant way or another.

The sum of our religion is peace and unanimity, but these can scarcely stand unless we define as little as possible, and in many things leave one free to follow his own judgment, because there is great obscurity in many matters, and man suffers from this almost congenital disease that he will not give in when once a controversy is started, and after he is heated he regards as absolutely true that which he began to sponsor quite casually...."

One thing no one touched on is that the kind
of compartmentalizing that goes on in wars has a price. Some people never get over it and are called insane. Others have no trouble and are
called sane. Those are labels that don't come close to the truth.

It is in our best interest to have as many different kinds of people as possible working together in the military. The more familiar we are with people who think differently than we do, the more likely we are to be able to negotiate. And perhaps our military personnel will be better able to reintegrate into civilian life. Perhaps our returnees won't
kill themselves.

Whatever we are doing right now has a hellish price. It can't be right to throw people into a situation where the only thing they can rely on is training, where they have few reminders of life as they knew it, and where there is no downtime. It can't be right to say "Only that
behavior which I believe is normal is allowed." This has our people looking over their shoulders all the time, fearing attack from their own side.

In civilian life we come in to contact with all kinds of people. Give our military people the stability of knowing that their bunk mates are not going to attack them, the freedom to move back into civilian life without needing psychotropic drugs.

I know avedis believes what he wrote. the fact that he was unable oat first, of expressing it in less than offensive terms supports my point.

I'm extremely glad to see a comment from Spiny Adagio, who has been reading this blog for several weeks now.

Spiny Adagio is a very fine writer and thinker.

I invite everyone to welcome Spiny Adagio, and encourage future contributions from SA, whose contributions I believe will be of benefit to many, given sufficient encouragement and response of the right sort.

Would allowing openly gay people to serve in the military cause serious damage to the institution? While I cannot guarantee that the answer would be no, clearly the available evidence would suggest that, in fact, the answer is no.

That's only one sentence out of whole paragraphs of clear-sighted common sense on the subject. I strongly suggest you read the rest too.